BANCROFT 
LIBRARY 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 


I.' 


SPEECHES 


OF 


HON.    O.    F.     WHITNEY 


IN     SUPPORT     Ol=> 


WOMAN  SUFFRAGE 


DBUIiZERED     IN     THE 


CONSTITDTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  UTAH 


30TH,  flPHlIi  21M),  flflD  flPRlh  5TH,  1895. 


UTAH  WOMAN  SUFFRAGE  ASSOCIATION 


Once,  to  every  man  and  nation,  comes  the  moment  to  decide, 

In  the  strife  of  truth  with  falsehood,  for  the  good  or  evil  side; 

Some  great  cause,   God's  new  Messiah,    offering  each  the  bloom  or 

blight, 

Parts  the  goats  upon  the  left  hand  and  the  sheep  upon  the  right, 
And  the  choice  goes  by  forever  'twixt  that  darkness  and  that  light. 

— Lowell. 


m/.f  n 


HON.  O.  F.  WHITNEY'S  SPEECHES  ON  THE 
SUFFRAGE  QUESTION. 


ON  Saturday,  March  30,  1895,  the  Convention  assembled 
at  Salt  Lake  City  for  the  purpose  of  framing  a  Constitution 
for  the  State  of  Utah,  was  considering,  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  the  article  on  Elections  and  Right  ot  Suffrage,  which 
it  was  proposed  to  incorporate  in  the  fundamental  law  of  the 
State.  Section  One  of  the  article  read  as  follows: 

"The  rights  of  citizens  of  the  State  of  Utah  to  vote  and 
hold  office  shall  not  be  denied  or  abridged  on  account  of  sex. 
Both  male  and  female  citizens  of  this  State  shall  equally  enjoy 
all  civil,  political  and  religious  rights  and  privileges. " 

The  proposition  to  confer  "equal  suffrage"  upon  the 
women  of  Utah — a  plank  inserted  b}7  both  the  Republican  and 
Democratic  parties  in  the  platforms  upon  which  the  Delegates 
to  the  Constitutional  Convention  were  elected — had  been 
debated  for  several  days,  and  the  merits  of  the  question  fully 
discussed.  The  principal  speeches  against  it  had  been  made 
by  Hon.  B.  H.  Roberts,  of  Davis  County,  and  the  principal 
ones  in  its  favor  by  Hon.  S.  R.  Thurman,  of  Utah  County, 
Hon.  F.  S.  Richards,  of  Salt  Lake,  and  Hon.  David  Evans, 
of  Weber  County.  On  the  day  mentioned,  Mr.  Whitney,  of 
Salt  Lake,  spoke  to  the  question.  He  and  Mr.  Kearns,  of 
Summit  County,  arose  almost  simultaneously,  and  the  latter 
was  recognized  by  the  chair.  Obtaining  his  leave  to  make  a 
remark,  Mr.  Whitney  said: 

"Mr.  Chairman, — In  the  beginning  of  this  discussion  I 
thought  I  had  a  great  deal  to  say;  but  one  by  one  the  arrows 
have  been  drawn  from  my  quiver  and  shot  away  by  other 
archers,  until  I  have  but  one  or  two  left,  and  I  would  like 
the  privilege  of  shooting  these  myself.  (Laughter.)  If  the 
gentleman  from  Summit  County  shall  follow  in  the  wake  of 
some  who  have  preceded  him — first  announcing  that  they 
would  speak  ten  minutes  and  then  occupying  an  hour — while 
it  will  please  me  very  well  to  hear  him,  in  that  event  the  time 


for  adjournment  will  have  arrived,  and  if  he  uses  the  rest  of 
the  morning  session,  I  ask  the  privilege  of  being  recognized 
first  this  afternoon.  With  this  understanding  I  will  give  way 
with  pleasure." 

Mr.  Kearns  then  spoke  for  a  few  minutes,  and  after  he 
had  concluded,  Mr.  Whitney  took  the  floor  and  addressed  the 
assembly  as  follows: 


MR.  WHITNEY'S  ORATION. 

MR.   PRESIDENT: 

I  have  listened  with  no  common  interest  to  what  I  con- 
sider one  of  the  greatest  debates  which  it  has  fallen  to  my  lot 
to  hear;  and  I  do  not  arise  to  contribute  my  quota  of  argument 
because  I  deem  it  necessary  that  I  should  speak  in  order  to 
decide  this  question.  It  is  not  so  much  from  a  desire  to  be 
heard,  as  it  is  to  respect  the  wishes  and  respond  to  the 
requests  of  certain  of  my  friends,  that  I  now  take  part  in  this 
discussion.  To  me  it  is  a  battle  of  destiny  that  is  in  progress, 
and  the  battles  of  destiny  are  won  before  they  are  fought. 
The  success  of  the  movement  for  Woman  Suffrage  is  a  fore- 
gone conclusion;  and  were  it  not  that  gentlemen  may  wish, 
as  I  do,  to  respond  to  the  requests  of  their  friends  and  place 
themselves  on  record  in  this  connection,  I  opine  that  not 
many  more  would  impose  on  the  patience  of  the  Convention. 

SEEKING   FOR    A   COMPARISON. 

I  have  listened  enraptured  to  the  eloquent  periods  that 
have  rolled  forth  from  the  lips  of  the  gifted  men  who  have 
preceded  me,  and  have  spoken  upon  either  side  of  this  ques- 
tion. I  was  particularly  charmed  with  the  eloquent  remarks 
of  the  gentleman  from  Davis  County  (Mr.  Roberts),  whom  I 
not  only  admire  as  a  gifted  man,  but  esteem  as  a  personal 
friend — sincere,  I  believe,  in  the  position  he  has  assumed, 
and  anxious  only  to  defend  the  right  as  he  sees  it.  I  could 
not  but  admire  the  courage  with  which  he  faced  a  frowning 
multitude,  and  withstood  the  onslaughts  of  a  multitudinous 
foe.  While  he  was  speaking  my  mind  scanned  the  pages  of 
history  in  quest  of  some  hero  with  whom  to  compare  him.  I 
thought  of  Horatius  at  the  Roman  bridge,  standing  single- 
handed  and  alone,  beating  back  the  Tuscan  legions  advancing 
to  attack  the  Eternal  City;  and  I  fain  would  have  compared 


my  friend  to  that  hero  of  antiquity.  But  I  could  not;  because 
Horatius  was  fighting  for  freedom,  and  in  my  opinion  my 
eloquent  but  mistaken  friend  was  fighting  against  it. 
(Applause.) 

I  went  back  farther  into  the  past.  I  thought  of  Leonidas 
and  his  three  hundred  Spartans,  defending  the  pass  of  Ther- 
mopylae against  the  overwhelming  hordes  of  Persians,  sweep- 
ing down  like  an  avalanche  upon  his  native  land.  I  wanted 
to  compare  him  to  that  hero — one  of  the  noblest  in  history — 
but  again  I  was  met  by  the  reflection  that  Lenoidas  fought 
and  fell  in  a  battle  for  liberty,  and  I  was  convinced  that  my 
friend  from  Davis  County  was  taking  part  in  no  such  engage- 
ment. (Applause.) 

Then  I  remembered  a  little  anecdote — one  that  is  doubt- 
less trite  and  commonplace  to  you  all.  A  bull  was  feeding  in 
a  pasture  through  which  a  railway  track  extended,  along 
which  an  express  train  was  advancing  at  lightning  speed. 
The  bull  got  upon  the  track  and  tried  to  prevent  the  train 
from  passing.  He  did  not  seem  to  know  what  was  coming, 
and  "preferring  his  free  thought  to  a  throne"*  (laughter), 
planted  himself  squarely  in  the  way  of  the  invicible  power 
that  came  rushing  and  roaring  on.  The  bull,  I  say,  did  not 
seem  to  know  what  was  coming,  but  the  farmer,  his  owner,  did 
(laughter),  and  with  a  gasp  of  astonishment,  mingled  with 
surprise,  he  exclaimed:  "Well,  I  admire  your  courage,  but 
d  — n  your  judgment."  (Laughter  and  applause.) 

But  I  did  not  like  to  compare  my  friend  to  a  dumb 
animal;  he  had  given  convincing  proof  that  he  was  not 
dumb;  and  though  there  was  once  an  animal  that  spake  — 
(laughter) — the  property  of  one  Balaam — (renewed  laughter) — 
it  spake  by  inspiration  from  on  high,  so  that  1  could  not 
compare  it  to  the  gentleman  from  Davis  County.  (Uproarious 
laughter  and  applause.) 

A    WATERLOO    FOR    ANTI- SUFFRAGISTS. 

Finally  my  mind,  coming  down  to  modern  times,  rested 
upon  a  scene  made  memorable  in  histor}',  and  I  thought  I  had 
at  last  found  the  object  of  my  search — a  proper  subject  for 
comparison.  Imagination  pictured  that  eventful  day — June 
18,  1815 — when  the  allied  armies,  the  representatives  of 


*  A  remark  made  by  Mr.  Roberts. 


banded  nations,  stood  facing  upon  the  field  of  Waterloo,  one 
bold,  independent,  desperate  man,  embodying  in  his  person 
the  imperial  despotism  from  which  Europe  struggled  to  be 
free.  During  the  first  day's  discussion  of  this  question,  I 
thought  I  saw  enacted  before  my  eyes  the  scenes  of  that 
memorable  occasion.  I  heard  the  thunder  of  the  cannon,  belch- 
ing death  and  destruction  across  the  narrow  valley  from 
mountain  to  mountain.  I  saw  the  French  march  up  the 
slope  and  attack  the  English  squares.  There  were  charges 
and  counter-charges.  I  heard  the  Prussian  trumpet  blow,  and 
the  patter  of  their  bullets  as  they  fell  in  the  midst  of  the  fray. 
I  saw  the  Old  Guard  make  its  last  charge  and  "foam  itself 
away."  Then  the  Wellingtons  and  Bluchers  arose:  the  cry  was, 
"Up  guards  and  at  them!"  and  down  the  slopes  pell-mell 
rushed  the  overwhelming,  irresistible  force  of  victors  flinging 
themselves  upon  the  vanquished.  I  had  thought  of  taking 
part  in  the  action,  but  remembering  what  history  has  to  say 
of  those  who  pursued  the  flying  French,  slaughtering  for  the 
mere  love  of  slaughter,  I  could  not  convince  myself  that  it  was 
my  duty  to  pursue,  Blucher-like,  with  sword  in  hand,  an  already 
defeated  enemy.  I  supposed  that  the  battle  was  over,  that  the 
issue  involved  was  decided;  but  it  seems  that  I  was  mistaken. 
I  had  not  been  witnessing  Waterloo  at  all.  It  was  the  defeat 
at  Leipsic  that  I  had  beheld,  and  the  fleeing  Napoleon  was 
but  banished  to  Elba,  and  not  to  St.  Helena.  He  returned, 
insisting  that  he  had  not  been  conquered,  and  entered  upon 
another  campaign.  Then  we  had  a  Waterloo  indeed,  and  all 
these  scenes  were  re-enacted. 

Standing  here  today,  not  as  a  participant  in  the  strife, 
but  rather  as  some  wandering  Childe  Harold,  musing  upon 
the  battlefield,  treading  "this  place  of  skulls,"  the  grave  of 
ambitious  hopes  and  desires,  I  feel  more  like  moralizing  than 
fighting  the  battle  over  again. 

ANSWERING    AN    IMPUTATION. 

There  was  one  thing  in  the  eloquent  oration  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Davis  County  which  I  did  not  much  admire.  He 
may  not  have  meant  it,  and  if  he  disclaims  it,  I  shall  accept 
his  disclaimer.  But  running  all  through  his  remarks  was  the 
seeming  imputation  that  all  who  opposed  him  and  stood  with 
the  majority  upon  this  question,  in  favor  of  woman  suffrage, 
were  actuated  by  motives  less  noble  and  honorable  than  his 


own.  He  alone  stood  for  principle,  towering  like  a  colossus 
in  the  midst  of  the  debris  surrounding  him,  while  we  who 
differed  from  him  were  merely  indulging  in  maudlin  sentiment, 
seeking  for  women's  smiles,  reaching  after  laurel  wreaths 
with  which,  it  was  intimated,  fair  hands  were  waiting  to 
bedeck  our  brows.  I  have  seen  no  laurel  wreaths  distributed. 
I  saw  a  bouquet  of  roses  yesterday — (laughter) — standing  upon 
the  table  at  my  left  (Mr.  Roberts'  place).  I  presume  it  was 
put  there  for  Mr.  Thurman  (Mr.  Roberts'  near  neighbor), 
since  he  is  one  of  those  who  have  been  reaching  after  such 
things — (laughter) — but  I  noticed  that  it  was  Mr.  Roberts  who 
walked  away  with  it  after  adjournment.  (Renewed  laughter 
and  applause). 

MAJORITIES    SOMETIMES    RIGHT. 

I  know  not  what  reasons  the  gentleman  has  for  thinking 
that  his  opponents  are  actuated  by  selfish  and  sordid  motives. 
But  I  wish  to  say  to  him,  and  to  all,  that  because  a  man 
"stands  alone,"  in  the  midst  of  "the  wreck  of  matter  and  the 
crash  of  worlds,"  that  of  itself  is  no  sure  sign  that  he  is 
right,  or  more  sincere  and  honest  than  his  fellows.  I  grant 
you  that  in  most  of  the  great  crises  of  history  the  minority 
have  been  right  and  the  majority  wrong.  The  grandest  heroes 
are  generally  found  among  the  few.  One  of  our  American 
poets  has  said : 

"  Count  me  o'er  earth's  chosen  heroes, — 

They  were  souls  who  stood  alone, 
While  the  men  they  agonized  for 

Hurled  the  contumelious  stone, 
Stood  serene,  and  down  the  future 

Saw  the  golden  beam  iriclme 
To  the  side  of  perfect  justice, 

Mastered  by  their  faith  divine, 
By  one  man's  plain  truth  to  manhood 

And  to  God's  supreme  design." 

But  it  is  not  always  so.  Majorities  are  sometimes  right, 
and  their  voice  is  then  the  voice  of  God.  When  Sumter 
was  fired  on,  and  the  shots  discharged  at  that  devoted  fortress 
echoed  round  the  world,  it  was  the  minority  that  spoke,  and 
that  minority  was  in  the  wrong.  But  when  the  great  North 
arose  in  its  might,  and  buckling  on  its  armor,  burst  like  a 
whirlwind  of  conquering  wrath  upon  the  advocates  and  sup- 
porters of  Secession,  it  was  the  voice  of  the  majority — the 


voice  of  Omnipotence  that  declared:     "The  Union   must    and 
shall  be  preserved."      (Applause). 

And  when  it  became  necessary,  after  ninety  years  of 
waiting,  to  make  good  the  promise  virtually  pledged  by  the 
patriot  founders  of  the  nation,  and  the  edict  went  forth  that 
struck  from  the  wrists  of  millions  of  slaves  the  fetters 
which  bound  them,  and  which  had  not  been  removed,  notwith- 
standing the  great  Declaration  of  Freedom,  it  was  the  fiat  of 
the  Almighty  that  blazed  from  the  lips  of  Lincoln,  and  it  was 
the  voice  of  the  majority  of  the  people  that  said  "Amen." 

The  heroes  of  romance  are  always  in  the  minority.  The 
hero  of  the  great  epic,  "Paradise  Lost,"  is  not  the  Eternal 
Father,  sitting  upon  His  throne  surrounded  by  numberless 
concourses  of  angels;  not  the  Only  Begotten  of  the  Father, 
full  of  grace  and  truth;  not  the  arch-angel,  Michael,  invinci- 
ble in  battle,  with  two-thirds  of  the  hosts  of  heaven  at  his 
back.  Neither  of  these  is  the  hero  of  Paradise  Lost.  It  is 
Lucifer,  the  fallen,  that  bold,  brave,  independent  spirit  "who 
dared  look  the  omnipotent  tyrant  in  his  everlasting  face  and  tell 
him  that  his  evil  was  not  good."  He  is  the  hero  of  the  poem, 
the  one  toward  whom  the  current  of  romantic  sentiment 
naturally  tends.  But  was  he  right?  Because  he  stood  alone, 
or  with  the  minority — because  he  dug  his  own  grave  and  went 
down  into  the  depths  with  the  heavens  weeping  over  his  fall, 
was  he  right  or  any  more  sincere  than  those  who  opposed  him? 
Were  Lee,  Jackson  and  Beauregard  right  because  they 
fought  upon  the  weaker  side,  and,  in  the  eyes  of  the 
romancist,  are  the  heroes  of  our  great  civil  strife?  No;  let 
the  current  of  generous  sympathy  go  out  to  them  as  it  will, 
let  the  romancist  choose  his  heroes  where  he  may,  the  fact 
remains  that  they  were  wrong,  and  that  the  Grants,  Shermans 
and  Sheridans  were  the  instruments  of  Providence  to  put 
them  down.  It  was  the  voice  of  the  minority  that  spoke  at 
Sumter,  but  it  was  the  voice  of  the  majority  that  thundered 
at  Shiloh,  Gettysburg  and  Appomattox. 

Majorities,  I  repeat,  are  sometimes  right,  and  I  believe 
the  majority  upon  this  floor  are  right  when  they  say,  we 
will  put  woman  suffrage  in  the  Constitution;  we  will  strike 
the  fetters  from  the  wrists  of  our  wives,  mothers,  sisters  and 
daughters;  we  will  grant  them  the  boon  already  granted  to 
the  black  man  under  the  pledge  of  the  declaration  that  "all 
men  are  created  equal"  and  that  "governments  derive  their 


just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed;"  we  will  take 
one  more  step  in  the  mighty  march  of  human  liberty,  which 
has  been  sweeping  down  the  ages  from  the  dawn  of  Time  even 
until  now. 

ANTI-SUFFRAGISM    IS    NON-PROGRESSION. 

All  the  arguments  against  woman  suffrage,  however  plaus- 
ibe,  however  sincere  they  may  be,  are  simply  pleas  for  non-pro- 
gression. The  eloquent  notes  that  have  been  sounded  here, 
while  they  please  the  ear  and  charm  the  senses,  are  not  har- 
monious with  the  morning  stars.  They  are  not  in  tune  with 
the  march  of  human  advancement.  I  stand  for  progress  and 
not  for  stagnation.  I  believe  that  politics  can  be  and  will  be 
something  more  than  a  filthy  pool  in  which  depraved  men 
love  to  wallow.  It  is  a  noble  science — the  science  of  govern- 
ment— and  it  has  a  glorious  future.  And  I  believe  in  a  future 
for  woman,  commensurate  with  the  progress  thereby  indi- 
cated. I  do  not  believe  that  she  was  made  merely  for  a  wife, 
a  mother,  a  cook,  and  a  housekeeper.  These  callings,  however 
honorable — and  no  one  doubts  that  they  are  so — are  not  the 
sum  of  her  capabilities.  While  I  agree  with  all  that  is  true 
and  beautiful  in  the  portrayals  that  have  been  made  of 
woman's  domestic  virtues  and  the  home  sphere,  and  would  be 
as  loth  as  anyone  to  have  her  lose  that  delicacy  and  refine- 
ment, that  femininity  which  has  been  so  deservedly  lauded,  I 
do  not  agree  that  this  would  necessarily  follow,  that  she 
could  not  engage  in  politics  and  still  retain  those  lovable 
traits  which  we  all  so  much  admire.  I  believe  the  day  will 
come  when  through  that  very  refinement,  the  elevating  and 
ennobling  influence  which  'woman  exerts,  in  conjunction 
with  other  agencies  that  are  at  work  for  the  betterment  of 
the  world,  all  that  is  base  and  unclean  in  politics — which 
when  properly  understood  and  practiced  is  as  high  above  the 
chicanery  of  the  political  trickster  as  Heaven  is  above  Hades 
— will  be  "burnt  and  purged  away,"  and  the  great  result  will 
justify  woman's  present  participation  in  the  cause  of  reform. 
It  is  not  a  sufficient  answer  to  sneeringly  enquire,  how  all 
this  wonderful  improvement  is  to  be  brought  about?  Even 
folly  may  ask  questions  that  wisdom  cannot  answer.  Re- 
formers always  build  better  than  they  know.  It  is  Providence 
that  directs  their  labors  and  guides  them  to  their  result.  It 
is  woman's  destiny  to  have  a  voice  in  the  affairs  of  govern- 


10 

ment.  She  was  designed  for  it.  She  has  a  right  to  it.  This 
great  social  upheaval,  this  woman's  movement  that  is  making 
itself  heard  and  felt,  means  something  more  than  that  certain 
women  are  ambitious  to  vote  and  hold  office.  I  regard  it  as 
one  of  the  great  levers  by  which  the  Almighty  is  lifting  up 
this  fallen  world,  lifting  it  nearer  to  the  throne  of  its  Creator. 
What  matters  it  if  in  the  process  some  corrupt  institutions 
perish,  some  antiquated  errors  are  set  aside,  some  narrow 
notions  destroyed  that  are  held  by  those  who  assume  to  know 
already  what  is  the  acme  of  woman's  civilization  and  refine- 
ment? Let  the  fittest  survive.  What  have  we  to  fear?  Let 
truth  and  falsehood  grapple.  We  will  crown  the  brows  of  the 
victor  and  say:  "You  were  worthy  to  survive." 

CARRYING    OUT    A    COMPARISON. 

Much  has  been  said  of  the  subversion  of  the  domestic 
empire  if  woman  takes  part  in  politics.  She  cannot  tamper 
with  its  filth  and  not  befoul  herself — she  will  not  lift  it  up, 
but  it  will  drag  her  down,  we  are  told.  My  eloquent  friend, 
in  one  of  his  most  beautiful  similes,  spoke  of  two  rivers,  the 
Mississippi  and  the  Missouri,  one  clear  and  sparkling  mingling 
its  pure  waters  with  the  turbid  tide  of  the  othei,  and  in 
answer  to  the  hypothetical  argument  that  the  muddy  stream 
was  never  so  muddy  afterwards,  he  replied:  "No,  but  neither 
was  the  clear  and  sparkling  stream  ever  clear  again."  And 
there  he  left  it.  He  did  not  tell  you  that  those  streams, 
those  blended  rivers  were  on  their  way  to  the  ocean,  where 
all  that  was  muddy  and  unclean  would  sink  to  the  bottom 
where  it  belongs,  while  all  that  was  sparkling  and  clear  would 
mingle  with  the  limpid  tide  of  the  "self-purifying,  unpolluted 
sea" — "the  image  of  eternity,  the  throne  of  the  invisible." 
(Applause.)  Who  pretends — not  I — that  man  of  himself,  or 
that  woman  of  herself,  is  conducting  this  great  march  of 
progress?  There  are  some  men  who  recognize  an  overruling 
Providence,  a  divine  plan  and  purpose,  as  broad  and  as  pure 
as  the  ocean,  and  into  which  all  the  rivers  of  human  thought 
and  action  run.  Whatever  they  may  be  before,  they  ultimately 
blend  with  and  subserve  that  divine  purpose,  swelling  the 
success  of  the  perfect  plan  into  which  they  flow.  Having 
passed  through  that,  rest  assured  they  will  be  made  pure. 

When  Stephenson    built    his    first    railroad,    inaugurating 
the    great    improvement    that    has    since    revolutionized    the 


11 

world,  he  was  compelled  to  cross  a  miry  marsh,  an  almost 
bottomless  pit,  into  which  tons  upon  tons  of  solid  matter 
were  thrown  before  the  roadbed  at  that  point  could  be  con- 
structed and  the  track  laid  thereon.  But  that  roadbed  today 
is  as  solid  as  the  eternal  hills,  and  along  that  track,  covering 
that  once  miry  marsh,  now  speed  triumphantly  the  trains  that 
bear  the  commerce  of  a  nation.  So  shall  it  be  with  the  work 
of  political  reform.  Politics  is  down  in  the  mire,  where  great 
reforms  are  ofttimes  obliged  to  begin  their  work,  but  the 
future  shall  see  arise  upon  the  sunken  foundations  walls  of 
beauty  and  towers  of  splendor  that  shall  glitter  with  the  glory 
of  the  skies.  It  is  only  by  descending  below  all  things  that 
we  can  hope  to  rise  above  all  things. 

A    GOD-GIVEN    AND    INHERENT    RIGHT. 

I  take  the  ground — notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said 
upon  this  floor  and  elsewhere — that  the  elective  franchise,  or 
the  underlying  principle  thereof,  is  a  right,  an  inherent, 
God-given  right.  It  existed  before  governments  were  formed, 
before  constitutions  were  heard  of.  It  does  not  depend  upon 
ink  and  parchment.  The  doctrine  that  governments  derive 
their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed,  was  true 
before  the  immortal  Jefferson  blazoned  it  with  pen  of  flame. 
It  was  true  ere  the  morning  stars  sang  together,  ere  the  sons 
of  God — ay,  and  the  daughters  of  God — shouted  for  joy  over 
the  birth  of  the  infant  world.  "Men  are  more  than  constitu- 
tions." "Before  man  made  us  citizens,  great  Nature  made  us 
men"  and  women,  with  rights  inherent,  God-given,  which 
governments  cannot  confer,  especially  a  government  which 
possesses  no  power  but  what  it  derives  from  the  people.  The 
right  to  consent  to  be  governed  is  such  a  right,  and  it  is  the 
right  embodied  in  the  elective  franchise. 

It  has  been  claimed  that  the  declaration  in  Genesis  con- 
cerning woman,  that  her  desire  should  be  unto  her  husband, 
and  he  should  rule  over  her,  is  no  part  of  the  curse  pro- 
nounced upon  her,  but  simply  the  divine  arrangement  respect- 
ing the  mutual  relations  of  the  sexes.  Grant  it;  what  then? 
Man  rules  over  woman,  but  it  is  her  desire"  that  he  should 
do  so.  Hence  she  consents  to  the  arrangement,  and  exercises 
her  inherent  right  in  so  doing.  Is  it  unreasonable  to  suppose 
that  she  was  consulted  before  that  arrangement  was  made? 

She  votes  "yes"  or  "no"  upon  the  proposition  as  to  who 


12 

shall  rule  her  in  the  household,  when  she  accepts  or  rejects 
an  offer  of  marriage. 

The  gentleman  from  Sanpete  (Mr.  Lund)  would  find  that 
a  woman  could  say  no,  and  mean  it,  if  he  were  to  take  the 
advice  of  the  gentleman  from  Utah  County  (Mr.  Boyer)  and 
propose,  with  all  his  anti-suffrage  notions,  to  one  of  that 
gentleman's  daughters.  (Laughter.) 

Woman  exercises  this  right  in  the  family.  Why  should 
she^not  exercise  it  in  the  State?  Is  not  the  family  the  type 
of  the  State?  Man  is  truly  the  head  of  the  woman,  as  Christ 
is  the  head  of  the  Church,  but  not  without  her  consent. 
Even  the  Church  has  the  right  to  consent  as  to  who  shall 
preside  over  it. 

MORMON    WOMEN    AND    CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

I  am  not  sure  but  that  the  gentleman  from  Davis  County 
believes  as  much  as  I  do  in  the  right  of  women  to  vote  under 
certain  circumstances.  On  the  6th  of  April,  1830,  a  little 
band  of  disciples  assembled  at  a  farm  house  in  Fayette, 
Seneca  County,  New  York,  and  organized  the  Church  to  which 
many  of  the  gentlemen  surrounding  me,  and  I  myself,  belong. 
It  is  a  popular  idea  that  only  six  men  were  present  when  that 
Church  was  organized.  This  is  a  mistake.  The  laws  of  the 
State  of  New  York  required  that  at  least  six  persons  should 
compose  a  religious  society,  and  six  men  were  known  and 
named  in  this  organization;  but  they  were  not  the  only  ones 
who  took  part  in  the  proceedings.  Forty  or  fifty  persons 
were  present,  including  a  number  of  women,  and  before  the 
first  thing  was  done,  before  the  founder  of  the  Church  took 
his  place  at  its  head,  he  asked  that  little  congregation  if  they 
were  willing  to  accept  him  as  their  spiritual  leader,  and  if 
they  were  willing  to  be  organized  as  a  religious  body.  The 
record  says:  "Unanimous  consent  being  given,  the  purpose 
of  the  meeting  was  effected."  Women  voted  there  as  well 
an  men. 

Many  years  later,  on  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi,  the 
founder  of  this  Church  called  together  the  women  of  his 
people  and  said  that  the  time  had  come — for  he  had  turned 
the  key — when  woman  should  take  her  place  beside  her 
brother  man  and  participate  more  fully  in  the  affairs  of  the 
Church  government.  The  object  of  the  meeting  was  to 
organize  the  women  of  the  Church.  They  were  to  have  their 


13 

presidents,  secretaries,  and  separate  though  subordinate  organi- 
zations, over  which  women  were  to  preside,  as  President 
Smith  and  his  counselors  presided  over  the  entire  body. 
From  that  time  until  the  present,  these  institutions  have 
existed,  and  the  doctrine  of  common  consent  has  prevailed 
among  this  people.  Twice  a  year  they  meet  in  their  con- 
ferences and  vote  upon  the  various  propositions  laid  before 
them,  vote  with  the  uplifted  hand,  and  the  women  vote  as 
well  as  the  men.  I  bear  in  mind  a  certain  occasion  when  I 
held  up  my  hand  with  peculiar  pleasure  to  signify  my  assent 
to  the  selection  for  a  high  ecclesiastical  office  of  my  esteemed 
friend  from  Davis  County,  and  I  noticed,  as  I  looked  over  the 
vast  sea  of  faces  composing  that  congregation,  that  probably 
two-thirds  of  them  were  women — holding  up  their  hands  to 
elect  a  man  who,  upon  the  floor  of  this  Convention,  says  that 
women  ought  not  to  be  permitted  to  vote.  He  declares  them 
incapable  of  independent  action,  and  thinks  they  ought  to  be 
satisfied  with  being  represented  at  the  polls  and  in  public 
life  by  their  husbands  who  vote  and  hold  office. 

WOMAN    A    FREE    AGENT. 

Our  friend  is  not  only  an  accomplished  orator,  he  is  a 
talented  author  as  well.  He  has  written  books,  the  object  of 
which  was  to  show— what  I  have  also  heard  him  thunder  from 
the  pulpit  with  as  much  earnestness  and  eloquence  as  he  has 
here  displayed — that  it  is  the  right  and  privilege  of  every 
soul,  man  or  woman,  to  answer  for  itself  before  the  Bar  of 
God.  I  never  heard  him  proclaim,  till  now,  that  woman,  be 
she  wife  or  maid,  was  not  in  a  position  to  act  independently, 
ether  in  Church  or  in  State.  Why,  the  very  genius  of  his 
religion  teaches  to  the  contrary.  Women  are  free,  as  they 
ought  to  be,  and  no  man  by  plunging  into  hell,  can  drag 
down  with  him  the  faithful  and  pure  wife  who  stands  at  his 
side.  She  is  a  free  moral  agent,  and  can  either  ascend  to 
heights  of  glory  or  descend  into  abysses  of  despair,  let  him 
take  what  course  he  may. 

HOW    THE    CHURCH    HAS    TAUGHT    THE    STATE. 

A  word  here  in  explanation,  lest  some  one  should  say  that 
I  am  advocating  a  union  of  Church  and  State,  the  blending 
of  religious  and  political  functions.  I  am  not.  I  advocate 
no  such  idea,  though  I  believe  that  politics  owes  much  to 


14 

religion.  What  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  for  instance,  the  founda- 
tion of  modern  jurisprudence0  All  down  the  ages  the  Church 
has  taught  the  State  good  and  correct  principles,  and  it  has 
adopted  them.  Whence  came  our  idea  of  republican  govern- 
ment'3 Was  it  not  suggested,  in  part  at  least,  by  the  Cal- 
vinistic  principle  of  church  government — the  right  of  the 
congregation  to  elect  its  own  ministers,  instead  of  having 
them  appointed  by  the  Pope  of  Rome  or  by  kings  and 
emperors?  That  idea  sprang  from  Calvinism,  permeated 
Switzerland,  France,  Holland,  Great  Britain,  and  was  brought 
by  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  to  the  shores  of  the  New  World. 
There  is  little  doubt  that  it  helped  to  give  form  and  color  to 
the  institutions  of  the  American  Republic. 

My  argument  is  that  we  can  afford  to  follow  a  good 
example,  and  accept  truth  from  whatever  source  it  comes.  I* 
the  Church  can  afford  to  be  liberal,  and  not  only  recognize 
but  permit  the  exercise  of  woman's  inherent  right  to  a  voice 
in  the  election  of  those  who  rule  her,  why  cannot  the  State 
afford  to  be  equally  liberal?  Why  deny  to  her  in  the  State 
what  she  enjoys  in  the  family — which,  I  repeat,  is  the  type 
of  the  State — and  what  the  Church,  the  elder  sister  of  the 
State,  is  willing  she  should  enjoy? 

AN    APPEAL    TO    AMERICANS. 

I  am  speaking,  not  to  Democrats,  not  to  Republicans;  I 
am  not  speaking  as  a  partisan  for  party  ends.  I  am  speak- 
ing as  an  American  to  Americans;  not  to  that  class  who,  it  is 
said,  fled  from  the  tyranny  of  the  Old  World  that  they  might 
worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  consciences 
and  compel  everybody  else  to  do  likewise;  but  to  descendants 
of  those  who  fought  and  bled  for  freedom  and  bequeathed  it 
as  a  sacred  legacy  to  mankind;  being  willing  that  others 
should  enjoy  the  same  rights  that  they  secured  for  themselves. 
I  hope  I  am  speaking  to  lovers  of  liberty,  to  champions  of 
progress,  who  comprehend  and  appreciate  the  divine  mission 
and  destiny  of  their  country — America 

— A  land  of  liberty, 

A  home  of  peace  and  human  brotherhood, 
Where  men  should  equal  stand,  a  sovereign  host, 
Nor  owe  to  haughty  birth  their  high  degree  ; 
Where  merit's  star  o'er  mammon's  might  ascend, 
Where  brain  and  brawn  should  blood  and  birth  outweigh, 
Where  law  should  liberty  and  life  defend, 


15 

And  tyranny  be  traitor  to  the  realm ; 

Where  right,  not  might,  should  monarch  rise  and  reign 

O'er  all  that  breathed  or  blossomed  'nedth  the  sun  ; 

Where,  linked  in  chain  of  loving  unity — 

The  only  chain  that  Freedom's  land  could  bind — 

A  sisterhood  of  empires,  hand  in  hand, 

Timing  their  steps  to  truth's  triumphal  tread, 

Might  march  to  music  of  Millennial  strains  ; 

Glad  harbinger  of  still  more  glorious  state — 

The  welding  of  the  nations,  world- wide  chain, 

With  Freedom's  ensign  waving  over  all. 

This  land, "which  God  gave  to  our  forefathers,  was,  as  I 
believe,  the  predestined  site  of  a  government  that  was 
expected  to  set  an  example  to  all  the  world;  standing  as  a 
goddess  in  the  midst  of  the  earth,  holding  aloft  the  torch  of 
truth  to  kindle  and  illumine  the  nations.  It  was  founded  for 
the  many,  not  merely  for  a  few,  and  no  class  should  have  a 
monopoly  of  its  blessings. 

"  Is  true  freedom  but  to  break 
Fetters  for  our  own  dear  sake, 
And  with  leathern  hearts  forget 
That  we  owe  mankind  a  debt  ? 
No ;  true  freedom  is  to  share 
All  the  chains  our  brothers  wear, 
And  with  heart  and  hand  to  be 
Earnest  to  make  others  free." 

This  was  written  for  the  black  man;  but  why  not  apply  it  to 
the  white  woman,  and  the  black  woman?  (Applause). 

America,  the  champion  and  exemplar  of  freedom!  How 
can  she  go  forth  to  evangelize  the  nations,  to  liberate  the 
world,  with  gyves  upon  her  wrists,  with  half  of  her  own 
children  in  chains? 

A    DEFENSE    OF    WOMAN. 

And  now  a  word,  which  I  do  not  mean  to  be  offensive,  in 
relation  to  a  remark  made  by  my  friend  which  I  was  some- 
what shocked  to  hear.  It  shows  to  what  desperate  straits  he 
was  reduced,  that  he  must  use  an  argument  which  he  himself 
was  compelled  to  discredit  and  cast  into  the  waste-basket.  He 
only  gave  it  time  to  be  noted  down  in  the  hearts  and  minds 
of  those  whom  he  wished  to  convert,  and  then  he  discarded 
it,  for  he  felt  ashamed  of  it;  and  I  must  add  that  his  shame 
did  him  more  credit  than  his  argument.  He  said,  in 
reference  to  what  he  termed  an  "invasion"  of  ladies,  who 
came  into  the  Convention  in  response  to  the  hearty  and  whole- 


16 

souled  invitation  of  its  members,  extending  to  them  that 
courtesy,  that  if  they  could  have  heard  the  gibes  and  jeers 
that  he  had  heard  concerning  them,  they  would  have  hung 
their  heads  in  shame.  Some  one  had  said  to  him,  quoting: 

"  They  are  neither  man  nor  woman, 
They  are  neither  brute  nor  human, 
They  are  ghouls." 

Let  me  emphasize  what  I  have  already  stated,  that  the 
gentleman  only  repeated  what  had  been  quoted  and  applied 
by  another,  and  that  he  himself  discredited  the  application. 
He  avowed — and  I  believe  him — that  he  has  the  highest 
respect  for  these  same  ladies.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  he 
could  have  shown  his  respect  for  them  far  better  by  refraining 
from  the  repetition  of  the  slanderous  saying,  than  by  giving 
it  public  utterance  upon  this  floor. 

Who  are  these  ladies  that  have  presented  their  petitions 
here,  who  have  listened  with  the  greatest  respect  to  the 
remarks  made  by  the  honorable  gentleman  and  by  others 
who  have  spoken?  They  are  intelligent,  high-minded  women, 
Mormon  and  Gentile,  among  the  purest,  noblest  and  best  of 
the  land.  (Applause).  They  are  here  to  listen  to  this  debate 
because  it  affects  them  to  tht  heart's  core.  They  are  interested 
in  the  discussion  of  a  question  fraught  with  so  much  for 
woman  and  her  cause. 

I  do  not  ask  for  their  smiles,  their  laurel  wreaths,  their 
bouquets  of  roses.  I  ask  only  to  be  considered  sincere.  I 
speak  from  a  heart  where  the  conviction  of  truth  sits 
enthroned  as  regards  this  question,  and  I  thank  you  for  bear- 
ing with  me  so  long  and  permitting  me  to  voice  the  sentiments 
of  my  soul. 

VICTORY    INEVITABLE. 

I  believe  in  woman  suffrage.  I  have  always  believed  in 
it.  I  look  upon  it  as  another  step,  another  impulse  of 
humanity  toward  perfection.  Its  success  is  assured.  Victory, 
anticipating  the  inevitable,  has  already  perched  upon  its  ban- 
ners. Its  course  cannot  be  staid.  As  well  try  to  check  the 
mountain  torrent,  or  the  mighty  waters  of  the  Mississippi, 
thundering  onward  to  the  sea.  Its  triumph  is  decreed.  Its 
destiny  is  fixed.  It  is  the  march  of  human  liberty,  the 
pageant  of  eternal  progress,  and  those  who  will  not  join  it 
must  stand  aside  and  see  the  great  procession  sweep  on  with- 


17 

out  them.  (Applause.)  And  if  this  Convention  fails  to  act 
favorably  upon  this  proposition,  some  future  Convention  will 
so  act,  and  gazing  upon  our  record  with  reproach,  will  crown 
her  brows  with  the  glory  we  have  denied.  (Loud  and  pro- 
longed applause.) 

Mr.  Whitney  spoke  for  just  one  hour — from  11:45  a.  m. 
to  12:45  p.  m. 

The  Anti-Suffragists,  in  and  out  of  the  Convention,  were 
now  thoroughly  aroused,  and  began  to  agitate  with  a  view  to 
killing  the  pending  proposition.  Mr.  Roberts  became  their 
champion,  and  he,  by  courtesy  of  the  Convention — a  majority 
of  whom  favored  woman  suffrage — was  given,  at  his  request, 
the  privilege  of  closing  the  debate.  The  privilege  was 
granted  because  of  his  statement  that  it  would  probably  be  his 
last  speech  on  the  floor  of  the  Convention,  since,  owing  to  his 
attitude  against  woman  suffrage,  he  had  been  asked  by  his 
constituents  to  resign. 

An  unfair  use  having  been  made  of  a  portion  of  Mr.  Whit- 
ney's remarks,  he,  on  the  morning  of  April  2nd,  just  before 
Mr.  Roberts  began  his  speech,  arose  to  a  question  of  personal 
privilege  and  asked  permission  to  make  an  explanation.  He 
stated  that  he  was  not  present  the  evening  before,  when  it  was 
agreed  that  the  discussion  should  end,  with  the  understanding 
that  Mr.  Roberts  would  make  the  first  and  final  speech  next 
morning.  Had  he  been  present  he  would  have  preferred  his 
request  at  that  time.  He  only  wanted  five  or  ten  minutes, 
and  this  only  to  set  himself  right  in  relation  to  some  of  his 
previous  remarks,  which  had  not  only  been  misunderstood, 
but  grossly  misrepresented. 

"Give  him  half  an  hour!"  "Give  him  all  the  time  he 
wants!"  came  from  various  parts  of  the  crowded  hall.  The 
chairman  rapped  for  order,  recognized  Mr.  Whitney,  and  the 
latter  thus  addressed  the  assembly: 


MR.   WHITNEY  S  SECOND  SPEECH. 

"I  do  not  deem  it  an  unreasonable  request  that  I  have 
made.  It  was  I  who  seconded  the  motion  giving  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Davis  County  the  privilege  of  closing  the  debate 
upon  this  question;  he  having  requested  that  privilege  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  as  he  had  been  asked  by  his  constituents  to 


18 

resign,  it  would  probably  be  his  last  speech  on  the  floor  of 
this  Convention.  As  this  is  probably  the  last  speech  I 
shall  make  on  earth  (Laughter)  for  there  is  no  telling  what 
or  where  I  shall  be  when  the  gentleman  from  Davis  County 
gets  through  with  me — I  think  it  only  right  that  I  should  be 
given  a  few  minutes  now. 

In  my  remarks  on  Saturday  I  made  mention  of  the  fact 
that  in  the  church  to  which  the  gentleman  and  myself  belong, 
women  are  allowed  to  vote,  and  incidentally  I  stated  that 
Mr.  Roberts  had  been  elected  to  a  high  ecclesiastical  office  by 
a  congregation,  two-thirds  of  whom  were  women.  Because  of 
this  I  have  been  accused  of  bringing  into  this  discussion 
matters  which  should  have  been  left  outside.  Some  have  gone 
so  far  as  to  say  that  I  advocated  the  idea  that  the  State  of 
Utah  should  model  its  institutions  after  those  of  the  Mormon 
Church.  I  am  not  afraid  that  my  eloquent  friend,  in  replying 
to  me — for  in  his  intelligence  and  fairness  I  have  confidence- 
will  revamp  such  an  absurd  and  ridiculous  idea.  But  I  wish 
him  to  understand  me  clearly  in  every  respect,  so  that  he  may 
answer,  not  what  1  have  been  falsely  represented  as  saying, 
but  what  I  actually  did  say. 

My  friend  argued,  you  will  remember,  that  suffrage  is  a 
privilege  and  not  a  right;  that  it  ought  not  to  be  extended 
to  any  class  incapable  of  independent  action,  meaning  that 
married  women  were  not  thus  capable,  and  that  they  ought  to 
be  satisfied  with  the  fact  that  at  the  polls  and  in  public  life 
they  were  represented  by  their  husbands.  By  the  way,  I  tried 
to  convince  my  wife  the  other  night  that  this  was  correct 
philosophy.  I  had  stepped  into  the  theatre  on  my  way  home 
and  witnessed  an  act  or  two  of  the  play  in  progress,  and  on 
reaching  home,  I  endeavored  to  persuade  ^Mrs.  W.  that  she 
had  witnessed  the  performance  as  well  as  myself,  because, 
forsooth,  in  accordance  with  the  philosophy  of  my  admired 
friend,  I  represented  her  at  the  play.  But  it  wouldn't  work. 
And  now  passing  on.  I  have  stated  Mr.  Roberts'  posi- 
tion. Let  me  now  state  what  I  said,  or  meant  to  say,  in 
answer  to  him.  I  held  that  the  right  of  consent— the  under- 
lying principle  of  the  elective  franchise— is  an  inherent  right, 
possessed  by  every  human  being;  that  it  existed  before  gov- 
ernments were  formed,  before  constitutions  were  heard  of;  that 
it  is  a  right  which  woman  enjoys  and  exercises  when  she 
accepts  or  rejects  an  offer  of  marriage.  She  says  yes  or  no, 


19 

and  thus  votes  upon  the  proposition  as  to  who  shall  rule  her 
in  the  household.  The  family,  I  averred,  was  the  type  of  the 
state,  and  1  contended  that  woman  in  the  state  was  entitled  to 
the  exercise  of  the  same  right  that  she  exercises  in  the 
family — the  right  to  consent  as  to  who  shall  or  shall  not  rule 
over  her. 

In  connection  with  this  matter  I  mentioned  that  in 
in  the  church  to  which  Mr.  Roberts  and  myself  belong,  this 
right  is  recognized  and  exercised,  for  the  women  of  the  church 
vote  as  well  as  the  men,  and  vote  independently  and  of  their 
own  volition.  And  I  added  that  if  a  church  which  is  gen- 
erally though  mistakenly  supposed  to  be  illiberal,  especially  to 
women,  could  afford  to  recognize  that  right,  the  State  of  Utah 
could  afford  to  be  equally  liberal. 

That  is  what  I  said  and  what  I  meant.  I  did  not  say,  or 
mean,  or  intimate,  that  the  State,  of  Utah  should  model  its 
institutions  after  those  of  the  Mormon  Church. 

I  meant  no  disrespect  to  Mr.  Roberts  in  stating  that  he 
had  been  elected  by  women's  votes  to  a  high  ecclesiastical 
office.  I  referred  to  that  incident  simply  to  remind  him  in  a 
mild  way  of  the  inconsistency  of  his  present  position. 

So  far  as  the  charge  of  bringing  into  this  discussion 
matters  that  should  have  been  left  outside  is  concerned,  I  have 
this  to  say,  that  while  I  do  not  see  anything  improper  in  what 
I  said,  I  should  sit  down  quite  comfortably  under  a  vote  to 
the  contrary  if  carried  by  a  non-partisan  majority  of  this 
Committee.  But  granting,  for  argument's  sake,  that  what  I 
said  was  improper,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  last  person  to  cast 
a  stone  should  have  been  the  gentleman  from  Salt  Lake 
(Mr.  Mackintosh)  who  called  me  to  account  for  it  upon  this 
floor;  he  being  the  first  signer  of  the  minority  report  im- 
pugning the  sincerity  of  the  Mormon  people  in  dividing  on 
national  party  lines — the  cause  of  all  the  acrimony  exhibited 
during  this  debate. 

The  gentleman,  in  commenting  upon  my  statement  that 
probably  six  thousand  women  voted  for  Mr.  Roberts  on  the 
occasion  in  question,  declared  that  that  was  just  what  he  was 
afraid  of — that  forty  thousand  women  would  so  vote.  He  was 
answered  by  Mr.  Wells,  and  I  answer  him  now,  that  he,  being 
a  Republican,  probably  feared  that  the  forty  thousand  women 
would  be  Democrats." 

Mr.  Whitney  having  closed,  Mr.  Raleigh  briefly  addressed 


20 

the  Committee,  and  was  followed  by  Mr.  Roberts,  who  spoke 
for  two  hours.  From  a  remark  made  by  him  the  impression 
went  abroad  that  Mr.  Whitney,  in  his  first  speech,  had  loaded 
him  with  coarse  and  offensive  epithets.  Nothing  could  be 
farther  from  the  truth,  as  the  speech  itself  will  show.  Mr. 
Roberts  did  not  assert  it — though  that  inference  might  be 
drawn  from  his  language— nor  would  the  Convention  have 
permitted  one  member  to  abuse  another  even  had  there  been 
any  disposition  in  that  direction.  Mr.  Roberts  was  one  of 
the  first  to  congratulate  Mr.  Whitney  on  his  oration,  a  cour- 
tesy which  the  latter  reciprocated.  During  his  speech  Mr. 
Roberts  ironically  referred  to  his  leading  opponents  as 
"mountain  peaks,"  and  observed,  in  relation  to  Mr.  Whitney, 
that  he  was  a  poet,  but  not  a  philosopher.  The  latter  replied 
to  these  strictures,  on  the  5th  of  April,  when  the  woman 
suffrage  question  again  came  up,  not  upon  its  merits,  but 
upon  a  motion  by  Mr.  Varian,  of  Salt  Lake,  to  recommit  the 
article  under  consideration,  with  a  view  to  having  another 
article  on  the  same  subject  reported,  to  be  submitted  to  the 
people  as  a  separate  proposition,  instead  of  being  included  in 
the  Constitution. 


MR.    WHITNEY'S  THIRD   SPEECH. 

In  what  few  remarks  I  make  I  shall  endeavor  to  respect 
the  wise  admonition  of  the  Chair  and  avoid  all  personal 
allusions.  I  certainly  have  no  desire  to  use  any  acrimonious 
language.  There  has  been  too  much  bitterness  indulged  in 
already,  and  I  shall  say  nothing  to  augment  the  stream  of  gall 
and  wormwood.  I  would  prefer  to  say  to  these  troubled  waves 
of  thought  and  feeling,  "Peace;  be  still."  I  disclaim  all  bit- 
terness, so  far  as  my  remarks  during  these  debates  are 
concerned.  What  raillery  or  sarcasm  I  have  used  has 
been  in  the  spirit  of  pleasantry.  It  was  good-natured  irony, 
and  it  was  very  far  from  my  purpose  to  wound  the  feelings  of 
anyone. 

I  am  in  favor  of  woman  suffrage,  and  in  favor  of  its 
being  placed  in  the  Constitution.  That  is  where  it  properly 
belongs.  It  is  a  fundamental  principle,  and  should  have  its 
place  in  the  fundamental  law  of  the  State.  It  should  not  be 
left  to  be  battle-doored  and  shuttle-cocked  by  succeeding 


legislatures.      It  should  be  a  fixed    star,  not    a    comet,    in    the 
'firmament  of  the  commonwealth. 

I  am  opposed  to  the  motion  to  recommit.  It  means  delay 
and  is  not  necessary.  The  current  agitation  against  woman 
suffrage  is  merely  local.  Whether  it  originated  on  the  floor 
of  this  Convention  or  outside,  does  not  matter.  The  women 
of  Utah  understand  what  suffrage  means.  They  are  not  as 
ignorant  of  the  subject  as  some  suppose.  They  enjoyed  the 
elective  franchise  for  seventeen  years,  and  voted  again  and 
again.  Can  it  be  conceived  that  this  could  be  and  the  ques- 
tion of  woman  suffrage  not  be  discussed  upon  its  merits  in 
their  homes?  Moreover,  there  is  a  woman's  paper  published 
in  this  city,  one  of  the  first  of  its  kind  established  west  of 
the  Missouri  River.  For  many  years  it  has  permeated  the 
homes  of  most  of  the  women  of  Utah.  It  keeps  them  in  touch 
with  the  leading  women  of  the  nation — with  the  thoughts, 
acts  and  aspirations  of  the  champions  of  woman  suffrage  the 
world  over. 

My  experience  in  politics  is  limited,  but  I  took  an  active 
part  in  the  campaign  which  resulted  in  the  election  of  you 
gentlemen  and  myself  to  this  Convention.  Woman  suffrage 
was  mentioned  repeatedly  by  speakers,  and  it  was  approved 
and  applauded  when  mentioned.  I  know  that  men  are  sincere 
when  they  arise  here  and  say  they  feel  bound  by  the  pledges 
embodied  in  the  platforms  upon  which  they  were  elected.  It 
is  wrong  to  question  their  integrity,  to  accuse  them  of 
cowardice  and  impute  to  them  improper  motives. 

1  call  in  question  the  motives  of  no  man.  That  is  not 
my  style  of  argument.  I  am  not  in  favor  of  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Varian,  but  I  would  not  impute  to  him  an  improper  motive 
in  making  it.  I  do  not  say  that  the  object  in  view  is  to  work 
unnecessary  delay,  but  I  do  say  that  in  fmy  opinion  that 
would  be  the  effect  of  it.  It  would  mean  that  this  Conven- 
tion must  wait  here,  bound  hand  and  foot,  until  a  few  agita- 
tors had  had  time  to  get  out  among  the  people,  work  up  an 
excitement  in  their  particular  locality  and  bring  such  a  pres- 
sure to  bear  upon  wavering  members  that  the  Anti-Suffragists 
would  gain  a  majority.  It  seems  to  me  that  these  agitators 
are  not  half  so  anxious  to  hear  from  the  people  as  they  are  to 
have  the  people  hear  from  them. 

The  vote  taken  at  a  matinee  at  the  Grand  Opera  House 
in  this  city  has  been  referred  to  as  indicative  of  the  popular 


22 

feeling  among  the  women  of  Utah  upon  this  question.  A 
majority  of  those  present  voted  against  woman  suffrage.  But 
what  was  the  character  of  that  majority?  I  have  a  little 
daughter  ten  years  old  who  attended  that  matinee.  She 
came  home  and  told  me  she  had  voted  against  woman 
suffrage.  I  asked  her  why  she  had  done  so.  She  replied, 
naively,  "Because  a  woman  told  me  to."  (Laughter)  That 
is  how  they  obtained  the  majority.  Some  lady  anti-suffragist 
acted  as  a  steering  committee  for  these  little,  innocent  chil- 
dren>  who  did  not  know  what  they  were  doing.  It  reminded 
me  of  the  school  boy  who  was  asked:  "Which  is  the  largest 
city  in  the  world.''"  "Chicago,"  he  answered,  and  when  asked 
for  his  authority,  said  a  Chicago  man  told  him  so.  (Laughter.) 

But  I  realize  that  I  have  no  right  to  argue.  I  am  lacking 
in  "the  logical  sense;"  I  am  not  a  philosopher,  but  only  a 
poet,  I  am  told.  I  do  not  claim  to  be  even  a  poet.  I  am 
only  a  lover  of  poetry,  but  one,  I  trust,  who  has  a  proper 
appreciation  of  the  poetic  faculty.  Poets,  gentlemen,  are  not 
mere  rhymesters,  not  mere  sentimentalists.  A  poet  is  one  who 
sees  into  the  heart  of  things,  and  is  capable  of  leaping  by 
intuition  to  a  correct  conclusion,  while  the  philosopher, 
or  mere  orator,  is  groping  in  the  mazes  of  his  own  fallacy. 
(Applause.) 

Again,  I  am  compared  to  a  mountain  peak,  "the  proudest 
of  them  all."  I  disclaim  that  honor  also.  I  am  only  a 
humble  foot-hill.  But  there  are  mountain  peaks,  towering 
intellects,  in  this  Convention,  to  whom  I  defer  and  with 
whom  I  fraternize.  For  them  1  accept  the  comparison. 
And  let  me  remind  you  that  it  is  the  mountain  peaks  that 
catch  the  first  glimpses  of  the  rising  sun,  while  the  valleys 
(where  stand  the  Anti-Suffragists)  are  still  shrouded  in  dark- 
ness. (Applause.) 

They  tell  us  that  woman  suffrage  in  the  Constitution 
will  imperil  Statehood.  I  don't  believe  it.  But  if  it  should, 
what  of  it?  There  are  some  things  higher  and  dearer  even 
than  Statehood.  I  would  rather  stand  by  my  honor,  by  my 
principles,  than  to  have  Statehood,  if  I  must  sacrifice  my 
honor  and  my  principles  to  obtain  it.  If  Utah  is  to  be 
immolated  for  standing  by  her  principles,  for  enlarging  the 
borders  of  liberty,  let  the  sacrifice  be  made,  let  her  be  bound 
upon  the  altar,  let  the  high  priest  of  tyranny  come  forth  and 
plunge  the  knife  into  her  breast.  She  cannot  perish  in  a 


23 

nobler  cause  than  that  of  freedom  and  equal  rights.  But 
the  dagger  that  strikes  at  her  heart  shall  be  fashioned  into 
a  scepter  for  her  hands,  and  the  blood  of  her  martyrdom  shall 
rise  as  an  offering  to  offended  Justice  and  become  the  seed 
of  her  future  glory. " 

The  result  of  the  contest  is  well  known.  The  Convention 
refused  to  recommit  the  article  on  Elections  and  Right  of 
Suffrage,  and  decided  by  an  overwhelming  majority  to  place 
the  equal  suffrage  clause  in  the  State  Constitution. 


